SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the moderation-in-all-things,-including-moderation dept.
An interesting writeup on Harvard Business Publishing blog by Michael Harris, discusses what most of us have already known, but each of us have colleagues (or worse, bosses) who still don't get it:
"In early April a series of reports appeared online in the United States and the United Kingdom lamenting the "lazy French." A new labor law in France had apparently banned organizations from e-mailing their employees after 6 p.m. In fact, it turned out to be more a case of "lazy journalists" than "lazy French": as The Economist explained, the "law" was not a law at all but a labor agreement aimed at improving health among a specific group of professionals, and there wasn't even a hard curfew for digital communication.
Like all myths, however, this one revealed a set of abiding values subscribed to by the folk who perpetuated it. Brits and Americans have long suspected that the French (and others) are goofing off while they the good corporate soldiers continue to toil away. They're proud about it too. A Gallup poll, released in May, found that most U.S. workers see their constant connection with officemates as a positive. In the age of the smartphone, there's no such thing as "downtime," and we profess to be happier and more productive for it.
Are we, though? After reviewing thousands of books, articles and papers on the topic and interviewing dozens of experts in fields from neurobiology and psychology to education and literature, I don't think so. When we accept this new and permanent ambient workload checking business news in bed or responding to coworkers' emails during breakfast we may believe that we are dedicated, tireless workers. But, actually, we're mostly just getting the small, easy things done. Being busy does not equate to being effective."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 04 2014, @09:12PM
For political / economic reasons we confound education and vocational training.
However, what you're describing is what used to be called education, giving yourself a lifetime of interesting things to think about.
Used to be, only the aristocrats had the luxury of not having to work to eat, so only they got higher educations. Then higher ed became a weird stealth way to select kids of the upper classes and aspirational middle classes. Leading after some time to higher ed being a combo of a replacement for ineffective high schools and strictly vocational training and complete disparagement of the liberal arts. Aside from the whole "higher ed as a license to print money" racket.
An uneducated aristocrat would probably go insane. A retired uneducated guy would probably go insane. I have an uncle in law who spent his last 20 years watching TV, what a waste. An educated guy is never bored, for better or worse, and an aristocrat / retired educated guy just has more time to do self directed educated stuff. Have fun, don't get bored!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday August 04 2014, @10:22PM
Indeed. It makes me think of my maternal grandfather who, after facing mandatory retirement, just sat down and waited to die.
It took a quarter of a century.
Have you read the Nooze [nooze.org]?